You read that right. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe. The JP Stevenses of the underworld would have us believe that gun control fixes crime. So, when a HIGHLY gun controlled place like London, England tops an evil, NRA-controlled city like New York, something must be off, right?

According to a report by the Sunday Times, New York City’s murder statistics have decreased by 87 per cent since the 1990s.

Meanwhile, London’s rate has grown by nearly 40 per cent in just three years, not including deaths caused by terrorist attacks.

Although New York last year had nearly double the number of murders than London, experts are concerned the gap is steadily closing.

Officials are concerned about the uptick in fatal stabbings, fearing there is a dangerous surge in knife crime.

Last year there was a total of 80 fatal stabbings in the capital – the most in almost a decade. And official figures show that 2017 was the worst year for knife deaths among young people since at least 2002.

Forty-six people aged 25 or under were stabbed to death in London, up by 21 compared with the previous year, according to police figures.

All normal, traditional Anglo-Saxon names, eh? Okay, “Mark Smith” or “Hannah Leonard” could be anyone, recent immigrants even. But I see a trend.

The PC Wave. Daily Mail.

There’s a reason they call it Londonistan. The city population is comprised literally half by foreigners, complete with a foreign, Muslim mayor (whom I originally tried [in vain] to give the benefit of the doubt). Surprisingly, many peoples from the third world bring their backwards, violent ways with them when the move into new territory. It’s like genetic or something.

It’s harder to get guns in NYC than most American cities. But one can get them. In London, and most of the UK, it’s nearly impossible. Funny how criminals immediately turn to other tools. It’s almost like the guns aren’t the problem. And the names….

And, yes, they’ve floated knife control there too. They’ve pretty much outlawed self-defense. The real British people are the real victims.

And in America, people like David “Not a Crisis Actor” Hogg and John Paul “The Relic” Stevens, want to do the same thing to real Americans. They want our safe nation torn apart by increased violence. They don’t want a discussion; they want gun control, guns banned. They want to rob you and leave you more likely to be murdered. They’re the same sort who want to import more killers too.

Worst of all, these Hellish liars and thieves want to leave you defenseless before the whims of whatever tyranny “their” government can devise. Honestly, they’re about as American as most of the above-named decedents were English.

This is what I promised yesterday. It’s what really happens when you give up the guns while embracing the “blessings” of globalism. It’s done in England and it can happen in the US.

But, in England, there is a ready solution, should one single Briton choose it. I challenge her to do so for the sake of her people. Queen Elizabeth possesses extraordinary powers. These have historically been shelved by a popular Monarch content with the civil order of society.

Things have changed and to a point suggestive of emergency action. Therefore, pursuant to her Royal Prerogatives, I urge the Queen to immediately:

Terminate all gun controls;

Arm her people;

Seize all assets of fake Britons, gun control advocates, and assorted globalist trash;

Deport or imprison all fake Britons, gun control advocates, and assorted globalist trash; and

Another day in the Big Apple, another visit from ISIS. Luckily, this one – all the way from Bangladesh (via Brooklyn) – was incompetent. I always get the sulfur/charcoal/saltpeter ratio mixed up. You?

Taxi driver and/or electrical worker and/or homicide enthusiast, Akayed Ullah, arrived at NYC’s main bus terminal early this morning on a mission. Seems his plan was to detonate a homemade bomb in the middle of rush hour. The device had other ideas, detonating prematurely and pitifully. *POOF!*

The explosion happened around 7:20am, in an underground tunnel linking the Port Authority Bus Terminal to Times Square.

The suspect, identified as 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, took the A subway train to Port Authority, got off and was walking east towards Times Square when a ‘low-tech’ explosive attached to his body with Velcro and zip ties partially exploded.

A photo from the scene shows Ullah crumpled up on the ground of the tunnel as police took him into custody. He was then rushed to Bellevue Hospital to be treated for serious burns and cuts to his abdomen and hands. Jack Collins, Sean Gallagher and Anthony Manfredini have been identified as the hero Port Authority Police officers who took Ullah into custody.

Three other people were also injured in the blast for minor injuries like ringing in the ears and headaches. But they were able to talk themselves to local hospitals.

Crafty New Yorkers: talking themselves to the ER: probably on the cellular.

Many speculate he was angered over the recently announced plan to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This would fit with the general reaction of many in his home country, Hamas, and various American and European liberals. He told police he wanted revenge.

Akayed Ullah, 27, who is from Bangladesh and was living in Brooklyn, told authorities he was trying to exact vengeance for Israeli actions in Gaza — where four Palestinians have been killed amid violent protests and airstrikes since President Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel last week, police sources told CNN.

Of course, per my First Law of Terrorism, Ullah was on someone’s radar before today. At the very least they had to look, glancingly, at him seven years ago when he tagged along behind … whomever from Bangladesh.

The miracles of post-1965 chain migration never cease. Car 54, where are you?

An added benefit was that, once again, Americans were treated to seeing their streets look like some Banana Republic:

Perceived security – after the fact. Daily Mail.

Friends, as terrible as this incident was, there is still time to act. That is, if we have the will. We can (and should) ban “assault-style” pipes. I’ve been a hunter for over 30 years and I can tell you that no sportsman needs a pipe. Your pipe will be useless (and pretty silly) going up against an Abrams tank or a nuclear carrier. Only the military needs “hi-capacity” pipes of this nature. Maybe plumbers…

New York and a few other States move to make illegal searches and seizures of your smartphone “legal.” For the children and such…

New York — “Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle, provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer.”

That’s language from the text of a bill currently working its way through the New York state legislature. The legislation would allow cops to search through drivers’ cell phones following traffic incidents — even minor fender-benders — to determine if the person was using their phone while behind the wheel.

Most states have laws banning the use of mobile devices while driving, though such laws are rarely enforced. This is largely because it’s nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. What person would admit to an officer that they broke the law, the argument goes, particularly when it’s after the fact? After all, cops don’t show up until after the accident occurs.

Now, technology exists that would give police the power to plug drivers’ phones into tablet-like devices — being called “textalyzers” in the media — that tell officers exactly what they were doing on their phone and exactly when they were doing it. And if the readout shows a driver was texting while driving, for instance, the legal system will have an additional way to fine them.

The driver was not a confused old person. Sources report the act seemed intentional. Based on his picture and recent history, it may be time to ban Hondas – for the children and such. Common sense, responsible car control. Maybe they need a new “NATO” in the Middle East or, at the very least, some more tax dollars. More “refugees.” Something. Anything.

Paul Joseph Watson.

The new normal. Aloha Snackbar!

UPDATE:

The Media: “Not terrorism.” “Probably not terrorism.” “He has a history of DWI.” “No Terror in Manhattan.”

Rojas was upset, not that he killed someone and injured two dozen others, but because he wanted to get shot dead and did not. I’m sure more than a few of you would oblige his wish given the chance. It’s a shame we can’t reanimate Celler and shoot him too.

In a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten,” introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others…

Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
“all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
“and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
“ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
“which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
“is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
“especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
“with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

Weprin (D, Dist. 24) boasts that his family has controlled District 24 four 45 years. He’s also knee-deep in the bankster cabal (“regulator”, yes…), and has other, related political allegiances.

Now, he wants to extend that control and regulation state-wide and world-wide via the internet. Another Democrat standing up tall for free speech! For he low-low price of $250 per day…

I assume this is all related to a scrivener’s error and some of the reported words were jumbled. If not, Weprin, his idiot constituents, his handlers, and the whole NY Assembly can all go to hell. Then, be forgotten.

Developing in the early hours. To my Tri-State readers: I would advise against public transportation this morning. More bombs found. One exploded by robot. 5 terrorists detained (with guns). Possible arrests. Possible active terror cell. More soon.

Though the Bangladeshi government denies it, ISIS is has claimed responsibility for the Dhaka restaurant attack Friday. The Bangabhaban seems to think the terrorists were part of a local radical group. Having copied U.S. corporate styles, ISIS likes to outsource their work so it could have been both.

Today in Baghdad a truck bombing killed 115 people. That was undoubtedly the work of ISIS; it happened on their home turf. Are we all Iraqis now? Are we Baghdad strong? Do members of Congress plan a sit-in to draw attention to the need to ban trucks?

As these attacks happened far, far away from the blessed shores of Columbia, most Americans likely won’t pay them much notice. Too far from home in untrendy places.

How about New York City? It’s pretty close to home and, according to Madison Avenue, it’s the trendiest place on earth. This morning a young man lost a foot when he stepped on an explosive device. Some thought it was a bomb, others assumed it was a fireworks accident. The police don’t seem sure about either possibility. “‘The explosion could have been an experiment with fireworks or homemade explosives,’ said Counterterror Chief John O’Connell. ‘We do not have any evidence of a constructed device or commercial grade fireworks. We believe this could have been put here as some sort of experiment.'”

They didn’t find labels or other material to readily identify it as a product of Black Cat or General Dynamics so it’s some sort of experiment. Who conducts such experiments and why? Two groups come to mind – prankster a-holes and terrorists. Given the terror trend of late, I’d go with the latter group (though it is possible there are rogue prankster terrorists out there).

The bombs used in the Boston Marathon attacks were allegedly manufactured out of fireworks and pressure cookers – an experiment, if you will. The physical evidence there was rather lacking as were witnesses, who were either killed by the police or whisked away rapidly into someone’s custody. Still there is a precedent; it is possible to cook up a homemade device using fireworks or any of dozens of chemicals and materials available at Home Depot.

They are saying this incident or experiment looks like a freak accident. They also said WTC 7 had collapsed half an hour before it actually did.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book. Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution. By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too). I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice. After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases. Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world. The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment. I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution. The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law. If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law. If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!: Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes. Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat. She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg. Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city. Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size. Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly. Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity. This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case. If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires. While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence).

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points. The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world. Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants. As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause. All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything. Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress. Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism. In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women. This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies. While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected. However, the right, like all rights, has limits. The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision. Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life. Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn. However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision. This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.” Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights. The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example. Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone. It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only.

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives. These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools. In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people. It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3. Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories. The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread. While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast. The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress. Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats. I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18. It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers. The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities. Turns out they were right. In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything. It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Frequently, it is the first. There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors. Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.). This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks. In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose. However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights. History indicates that “emergencies” never go away. For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany. We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII. History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….” Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing. Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance. The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors. The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will. The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax. See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012. Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god. Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights. I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application. For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.” It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny. I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment. There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject. The First is worthy of great attention. However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts. Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts.

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review. However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people. For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process. The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law. It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect. In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist. I found this hard to believe. Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations. I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering. Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases. Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution. Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People. With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society. I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.” I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet. Someday…

I like to help people. I also appreciate good people and good services. So, I have no problem whatsoever writing this column about my great friends at the Top Shelf Cigar Shoppe in Martinez (Evans [greater Augusta]), Georgia. This is part of my continuing series on good businesses.

My family and I moved to Augusta about six years ago. I needed to find a top-notch place to purchase and enjoy fine cigars. There were and still are several tobacco businesses in the area, each unique in its own way. However, when I first visited Top Shelf I knew I was “home.”

Just about every city over 100,000 in population has at least one cigar shop. Some are decent, others are good, some are great. Top Shelf falls into the rare great category. If you live in the area and enjoy fine cigars, I highly recommend a visit. Find them on the web, here: http://www.topshelfcigarshoppe.com/. If you’re visiting or just passing through, you’ll feel right at home.

Top Shelf is the brainchild and proprietary interest of Mr. Russell Wilder. After retiring early, Russell knew he wanted to develop a special place dedicated to premium cigars and pipe tobacco. He has more than accomplished his original goal, having built one of the most recognized and distinctive stores in America. This has not been am easy process. Often he reports to work before the sun rises and doesn’t leave until it is dark again. He goes the extra mile for his customers and with his suppliers and employees.

(Russell and his boss.)

Russell regularly attends national conventions and trade shows and has a personal relationship with most of the major players in the modern cigar market. Just the other day he returned from a trip to Esteli, Nicaragua and a visit to Nick Perdomo’s growing and production operation. Nick and other cigar royalty have been quests at Russell’s shop over the years.

I’ve been to cigar shop’s from Florida to New Hampshire. The really good one’s are memorable because they get things right. In addition to maintaining an inventory which works for the local market, owners must follow trends and design their stores to be as comfortable and enjoyable as possible.

Russell has had three different locations, each an improvement over the previous incarnation. His original shop was in a shopping center. As is (or was), it was an excellent place. However, when the opportunity presented itself to move to a larger space where he could upgrade most of the shop’s features, Russell didn’t hesitate. I helped move some of the stock and furniture from place to place as did most other “regulars.” A great shop will always have at least a few regular customers on hand to demonstrate the quality of the business.

Last summer Russell made a quantum leap. He bought his own freestanding building and moved his shop to its current location on Columbia Road. This provides easy access from Washington and Wheeler roads, both major arteries, as well as access to Interstates 20 and 520. There are some interior pictures of the new shop at the link above. You may notice a rounder version of your’s truly in one of those – seated at the domino table with a few other vagabonds.

The new shop is a model of cigar industry environment and decor. It features a giant, two-room walk-in humidor with dark wood and exposed brick trim. The rest of the building (even the huge bathroom) is covered floor and ceiling in rich judge’s panelling and tongue and groove Arkansas pine. The floor is a beautiful faux stone. I played a small part in the remodeling of the new space, working several nights until late with a crew of other dedicated regulars to help Russell build his dream. It was well worth it. And, it says something about a man when so many of his friends and customers will pitch in on a construction project of that magnitude for free. The greater portion of the credit for the new design goes to one Scott Kirby, who single-handed did about 80% of the interior work. Everything you see is hand, scratch built. The design rivals anything I’ve ever seen in the cigar best of any major city. Think a luxury shop in New York or London.

(Kipling in the humidor.)

Any liquor store with a license can sell cigars. Some lower-rent aficionados go so far as to buy cigars on-line. A great shop makes for a great experience. Russell and his staff – wife Sharon (the real boss), daughter Sarah, Gerald, Tom, and Matt – know the business inside and out and can make tremendous recommendations and comparisons.

Another critical facet of a successful shop is the smoking lounge. As noted above, Top Shelf’s is trimmed in luxurious wood and stone. It has three air-cleaners to keep the atmosphere breathable no matter how many cigars are being enjoyed. There is spacious seating for many friends to gather in comfort. Russell provides humidified lockers, a giant screen television with cable, a refrigerator, free coffee, and innumerable other services. The lounge is usually busy any hour of the day, any day of the week.

As part of going the extra mile Russell offers many additional perks. The shop is home to a premium club with meets at least once a month. The meetings provide an entertaining opportunity for fellowship and the enjoyment of the latest cigars. The shop also hosts a friendly poker game once a week (no cash). Russell also is deeply involved in the community. From his annual charity golf tournament to providing cigars to local businesses and clubs to keeping the smoke-loving patrons of the Masters happy, Russell is everywhere.

An arch-libertarian, Russell is happy to give his opinion on politics and economics to both his customers and friends as well as the local media. Russell also has a keen sense for the stock market and is always dropping profitable hints to those who will listen. This level of personal service is what puts Top Shelf above just about any other store in the Southeast.

Drop by for a visit if you can. If not, scour your area for a shop with the traits I’ve listed here. You’ll be glad you did. Not a cigar lover? Shame on you. There is still time!

I love follow-up stories. The other day I did a piece about military drones killing Americans and mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act as a possible solution. I said I’d have more to say about the Act soon. Here it is:

On June 18th of this year we will all celebrate the 135th birthday of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. Happy Birthday, Pos-Com!!! Maybe you do not share my zeal? Perhaps you have never heard of this great Act or maybe you don’t know what it means. Allow me to educate you. The Posse Comitatus Act means absolutely nothing. Those who will celebrate the creation of this dead letter are those who should be prosecuted under it – namely those members of the various executive branches of the Federal and state governments.

“18 U.S.C. § 1385” is a legal citation to the United States Code, referring to Section 1385 of Title 18. Title 18 is the federal criminal code thus, Posse Comitatus creates a criminal offense. Like 99.99% of federal criminal laws it only sets forth a felony offense and punishment. Unlike most federal crimes though, the Act carries a lower than usual maximum sentence and it HAS NEVER BEEN PROSECUTED!

In law school I wrote a lengthy research paper on the Act – Posse Comitatus – written for my advanced Constitutional Decision-Making seminar taught by the very Honorable Professor John B. Anderson. Anderson represented the people of Illinois’s 16th Congressional District for twenty years. You may recall his 1980 independent run for President against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. You may also recall his book The American Economy We Need from 1984.

I consider Professor (as I always call him) Anderson a good friend. Once he and his wife, Keke, graciously received my wife and I at their beautiful home on a visit to Washington. However, back when I initially presented my paper proposal to him he seemed a bit skeptical. I suspect that, at the time, even he had not heard of the Act. As the semester progressed though our Nation’s Capital came under the terror of the Beltway snipers. Anderson called me one day and said he had just heard a news report on the radio about the snipers, the hunt therefore, and … the Posse Comitatus Act. He was hooked and I received an “A” for my efforts.

Over the ensuing decade I have ripped the paper apart, added to it, and conducted additional research on the Act and many related matters. In the not to distant future (later in 2013 perhaps) I look forward to publishing a book based in part on my original thesis. The book is tentatively called A Well Regulated Militia (Amazon/CreateSpace/Kindle) and will relate to all things Second Amendment, Militia, and tyranny prevention (and reversal). This would include, for reasons cited herein, below, the Pose Comitatus Act. This work will be far more substantial than The Time Given (soon, I promise), though that treatise is no less important to the scope of human happiness than anything else I write.

I hope the book-buying public also gives my work an “A” and I experience mass market financial success. Remember, you need not actually read a book; what counts is buying it (multiple copies if possible). I have limited the many notes and many of the citations which accompanied my old paper and which will inevitably appear in the book. For the book I intend to clean them up, eliminate them if possible, or relegate them to the seldom viewed “Notes” section at the back. I hear notes, like charts and graphs, drive down sales. Pictures have been known to help though:

(Our Posse. Source: Google images).

The history of the Act is a great part of the history of the 19th century in America. As you may recall in the middle of that century we had a rather unpleasant incident which resulted in the deaths of about 600,000 men. I refuse to call it The Civil War because it wasn’t. A “civil war” is where two or more factions fight for control of a central government. In our case, the Southerners wanted to be free of Washington, not in control of it. It also wasn’t a declared war (I’ve had debates with other attorneys about what that meant). My northern friends often ask me my opinions about the war. I can sum the up easily: it was as deadly as it was unnecessary.

I am in the minority of honest legal historians who believe that the southern states had every authority to seceed from the union. I think any state today has that same authority. Nothing in the Constitution compels eternal membership and several states expressly reserved the ability to withdraw at any time. They asserted a Natural Law position which, being universal, would seem to apply to even those states which joined without such reservation.

Back in the Nineteenth Century, America was plagued with major problems – debt, financial scams, economic warfare, lying politicians, and, of course, slavery. Come to think of it, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You may recall from history that once the “war” was over and the Union reunited, a probationary period was imposed on the southern states. This period was known as Reconstruction. It was rank with abuse. In numerous cases the legislatures of southern states and other institutions were invaded or harassed by regular army troops. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed partly in response to these alarming events.

“Posse Comitatus” is a Latin phrase roughly meaning “power of the county.” “Posse” in latin is a verb which means to “be able” or to “have power”. “Comitatus” means “company” or “retinue.” In other words, it refers to the local militia – those men available for service in times of crisis. An aside, suited for a future article: “militia” does not correlate with the “National Guard.”

The concept of the militia predates and was well established at the time of our nation’s founding. Congress still acknowledges the militia separately from the Guard; the Guard and the militia are differentiated under Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code. Every State maintains a militia (at least in the law books) separate from the Guard. In Georgia, the State militia is officially the Georgia State Defense Force. See: O.C.G.A. § 38-2-23, et seq.

The Guard was instituted in the early twentieth century and is essentially a back-up force for the regular national army – it is sometimes on loan to the several States. Enough on that for now.

The Pose Comitatus Act reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

The Act (let’s call it the “PCA” from here out) originally started out as an amendment to the Army Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4867) for the fiscal year ending in 1879. This would be during the forty-fifth congress, second session, in 1878. The initial mention of the concept of the PCA as an amendment came from Rep. William Kimmel of Maryland on May 20, 1878. Kimmel was cut off in mid speech by time constraints; however, he successfully laid the framework for the PCA amendment. See: 7 Cong. Rec. 3586.

H.R. 4867, PCA and all, eventually became law on June 18, 1878, hence the pending birthday celebration. See: 7 Cong. Rec. 4686. Some scholars have speculated the PCA was enacted only to end the use of he army in supervising southern elections and legislative sessions. Earlier I said the PCA was partlyenacted for the reasons said scholars state. I, however, dug deep into Congressional history (boy, what fun) and found a more complicated picture.

The roots behind the theory of Posse Comitatus go much deeper and further back in history than the American Republic. The concept was present at the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago. Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.

In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers. Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against King George that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776). Jefferson listed various other similar complaints against the King.

Jefferson was not alone in his fear of standing armies, provisions against which found their way into both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (remember the Constitution?). In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton).

The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic. A sub-issue of concern at the end of the 19th Century was the potential rise of communism, which Congress greatly and rightly feared. Karl Marx was still alive at the time of the PCA debate, his works on “economics” relatively fresh off the presses. Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).

Rep. Kimmel stated the then current use of the army in domestic affairs was a direct “violation of the Constitution.” He cited numerous examples of federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York. 7 Cong. Rec. 3580 – 3582. Again, it is popularly said that the PCA was the result of Southern states fed up with the misuse of federal soldiers during elections. Most of Kimmel’s examples were responses to tax collections and labor disputes. In 1878, as today, New York and Michigan are generally regarded as northern states. Other Representatives related similar troubles all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

In the Senate the debate continued. Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.

As the PCA is a criminal law and given the federal Empire’s love of prosecuting any and everything, one would expect numerous cases under the PCA over the past century or so. One would be mistaken. There has never been one single case brought against anyone under the PCA. This may be due to the fact that the most likely suspects are government officials. They don’t like to go after their own. Honor among thieves you know.

The closest semblance of judicial review of the PCA has been in the form of indirect rulings in cases involving other crimes. Defendants have asserted, as a defense, an alleged violation of the PCA by government officials executing some duty (such as drug enforcement). This defense universally fails. I will not bore my audience with any particular cases, though they date from at least 1975 and continue into this Century.

Oddly, I, the great authority on this matter, was once threatened with the potential of facing a PCA violation! Yes, yours truly, Perrin Lovett. It all stemmed from one of those lovely anti-family law cases of which I have previously expounded: https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/anti-family-law/. I believe it was a custody dispute.

Anyway, the defendant was a member of the U.S. Army stationed at Camp Zama in Japan. Thus, I was tasked with the trouble of perfecting International legal service of process which is not necessarily the easiest thing to do. I decided to circumvent technicalities by having the defendant simply acknowledge he had received my petition. Not having an exact address for him, I contacted several offices at the Camp in an attempt to solicit their help in the matter. The Provost Marshall’s office quickly told me they could not assist with serving a civil lawsuit without running afoul of the PCA. They actually said that; you know, from the history given here, this type of situation was not within the original intention of Congress. I pointed out that I was not asking for such, just for friendly information. As luck would have it, I located the defendant on my own and the case went forward. As usual, no-one was happy. Correction: I am happy to have avoided being the only PCA prosecution in history.

Back to reality. There have been cases innumerable of the military becoming involved in civil law enforcement – from the “war” on drugs to the massacre at Waco, to the Wounded Knee massacre, to the hunt for the D.C. snipers, etcetera, ad nauseum. Why then, have there been no criminal cases arising from the incidents?

The answer lies in the actions of both the Executive branch and, especially, with Congress. Exception after exception to the PCA have been enacted over the long years. Congress has all but rendered the PCA a dead letter to the point the Act is useless for its intended purpose.

It is somewhat interesting that, having taken the teeth away, Congress has not fully repealed the PCA. This may be because federal laws never die, they linger forever, used or not. Amazingly, as recently as 2005, the 107th Congress reaffirmed the spirit of the PCA, literally, but not meaningfully. “The Congress reaffirms the continued importance of …[the PCA] … and it is the sense of Congress that nothing in this Act [H.R. 5005 – creating the Department of Homeland Security] should be construed to alter the applicability of such section to any use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws.” H.R. 5005 § 780(a) – (b).

The Homeland Security debacle … Act … followed the Patriot Act and decades of “war” on drugs, crime, and your freedom. Various National Defense Authorization Acts have followed. The result has been the complete decimation of the PCA. President Bush (No. 43) and his successor, Barack Obama, have made clear their intention to use the military whenever necessary, wherever needed, to keep us safe, of course. Obama even claims he can use military weapons to kill without Due Process. The protests against his claim are less than deafening. I protest!

I have some suggestions for changes and improvements to restore the vitality of the PCA. This is one of the few instances where you will ever hear me call for a new or continued statute. In the name of freedom, Congress should amend the PCA first to kill all of the previous exemptions. Second, they should specify that the law only applies to those members of the federal, state, or local governments who would dare to use federal military force to accomplish civil law enforcement of any kind; they could define a violation as an act of government employee-specific treason.

The punishment could be expanded accordingly. Perhaps the original punishment might be appropriate in minor cases. Others, such as those which involve the mass killing of American citizens could be made capital felonies. Congress has the Constitutional authority to also limit the review of any conviction from any court – including the Supreme Court; thus, when a high official (an attorney general for example) orders Army tanks to drive into a church and burn the worshippers within alive, that official could be convicted under the PCA and immediately hanged in public. This might serve as a warning to future would-be tyrants.

Again, this is only a suggestion. I do not relish the idea of killing even to avenge killing. I reconsider, reluctantly, when the dread act(s) have the potential of continuing against all of the free people.

This leads me back to my article on drones picking off the voting, tax-suffering public, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/droning-on-and-on/. A President, already forbidden to use military drones against domestic targets (his already unConstitutional Orders overridden by my proposed law) might think twice about defying the law if he knew the gallows awaited his defiance.

The issues raised herein may likely lead to other related articles. All of which concern you and those you hold dear. It is your freedom, security, and happiness that drives me to raise the alarm – the same alarm raised by the Founders and the forgotten members of the forty-fifth Congress. Bless their wisdom and fore-sighted concern.